Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate William Lai (賴清德), who has been vice president during President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) second term in office, and his running mate, former representative to the US Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), on Saturday emerged victorious with 5,586,019 votes, or 40.05 percent of the total. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) and his running mate, Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), came in second with 4,671,021 votes (33.49 percent), while Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and his vice presidential pick, TPP Legislator Cynthia Wu (吳欣盈), garnered 3,690,466 votes (26.46 percent).
In the legislative election, the DPP has gone from holding a majority of the seats in the Legislative Yuan to just 51, while the KMT picked up 52 and the TPP won eight. None have a majority.
Therefore, while the DPP still holds the presidential office, it has a minority of seats in the legislature — a predicament that is sure to severely constrain its governance.
Notably, Ko’s TPP — a relatively new party that chose the color white to symbolize going beyond the duopoly of the “blue” KMT and “green” DPP — has established a firm foothold in government, allowing it to wield significant influence. Whether the TPP caucus would sharpen confrontation in the legislature and aggravate political turmoil or promote unity would depend on the political wisdom of its leaders.
As for the DPP, would the incoming and somewhat weakened Lai administration surmount internal and external challenges to lead Taiwanese along the right path? This would be the greatest test for Lai and Hsiao.
Saturday’s polls attracted great attention worldwide. US broadcaster CNN said that Taiwan’s presidential election could change the world.
The main reason Taiwan attracts so much international attention is that it has sided with the US in its trade conflict with China.
Despite being more than 40 percent dependent on China for foreign trade, Taipei has boldly and resolutely sided with Washington and other democracies with similar values. They seek to resist the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which has grown strong by absorbing nourishment from the capitalist world, while wantonly building up its military power and engaging in expansionism with the aim of building a “red empire” under the banner of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
Taipei’s choice to join the ranks of the Washington-led resistance against Beijing has not resulted in it being harmed by China’s economic coercion. On the contrary, because of its complete semiconductor supply chain and that it manufactures 90 percent of the world’s advanced computer chips, Taiwan has become an important partner in the US’ strategy of “friendshoring” — manufacturing and sourcing from countries that are geopolitical allies — and establishing reliable supply chains.
This development is closely aligned with the interests and values of the democratic world. Notably, the worldwide geopolitical crisis triggered by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine further highlights Taiwan’s importance in global stability as it sits under the covetous gaze of the CCP.
If an armed conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the entire human race could sink into a third world war that would cause incalculable deaths and injuries, while the global economy would sustain economic losses amounting to an estimated US$10 trillion.
The outcome of the presidential election shows that mainstream public opinion is focused on safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty and democracy and not leaning toward China. Most Taiwanese would rather put their trust in Taiwan than believe Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), as former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) suggested last week during an interview with German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
More importantly, Taiwan, lying as it does on the geopolitical forefront of resistance to China, is willing to be a partner of the free world. This is not only important for Taiwan itself. It makes the nation a mainstay of global geopolitical and economic stability. This is why Taiwan’s national elections have attracted the world’s attention.
Electing a president who would firmly safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty shows that unification with China is not an option for Taiwanese.
Nonetheless, some of those who cast their ballots for the two opposition party candidates, who are regarded as “China-friendly,” fear the prospect of war.
That being the case, Lai and Hsiao would also need to be more flexible, formulate comprehensive countermeasures and employ their wisdom to safeguard Taiwan despite its small size.
On the one hand, they must bolster Taiwan’s national defense and be prepared for war without seeking conflict, while also joining hands with the international community and forces of justice.
On the other hand, they should take more pragmatic actions to overcome hardness through softness, thus showing the world that Taiwan is gentle, yet determined. That is the only way to set people’s minds at ease and win more support from the international community.
The ruling party should also recognize that 24 years after the DPP was founded, its share of the vote this time was only slightly more than the 39 percent gained by the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2000, when he was elected president in the first election to result in a handover of power from one party to another.
In 2004, Chen was re-elected with just more than 50 percent of the vote. Twenty years later, Tsai’s winning share of the vote leaped forward to 57 percent. So why, after Tsai’s admirable achievements during her eight years in office, has the DPP lost a considerable number of votes in this year’s election, falling back to the baseline of the Chen era?
Frankly, while the blue and green camps have consolidated their core support bases in this election, the votes of many centrist and young voters have gone to Ko’s “white” camp. Although this has not led to a transfer of power, it would make waves in the legislature, where the TPP has clearly become a crucial third force with plenty of room to maneuver.
The worrying aspect of this development is Ko’s political style. He has a habit of bragging, and being arrogant and conceited, and often contradicts himself. He also tends to employ populism in the style of former Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東), being an expert in manipulating populist tendencies and stirring confrontation.
Now that he and his TPP have become a third force in the nation’s political arena, it remains to be seen whether its newfound influence would be good or bad for Taiwan.
Still more worthy of attention is that the considerable flow of votes from the DPP and the KMT to Ko is a structural problem. The rising cost of real estate and commodities means that young people cannot afford to buy a home. In addition, young people have always tended to be anti-establishment, so they are easily attracted by slogans along the lines of “blue and green are equally bad.”
In the election campaign, these factors generated a quasi-religious fervor that had an earthshaking effect on the blue and green support bases. Figuring out how to overcome the structural problem of young people’s dissatisfaction with the realities they face would therefore be an urgent task for Lai and Hsiao after they take office in May.
Overcoming the “eight-year curse” is an admirable achievement for Lai and Hsiao, yet clearly plenty of people wanted to see a change of governing party.
Four years ago, Tsai was voted in for a second term with more than 8 million votes. Despite this sweeping victory, she has repeatedly and publicly reminded herself to be humble. Now that Lai and Hsiao have been elected with just 40 percent of the votes, they need to reflect on themselves and make an even greater effort. They cannot afford to be even slightly arrogant or conceited.
Commenting on the prospects for this election two days before it took place, an editorial in the the Washington Post on Thursday last week said that a free election in Taiwan is a defeat for China’s dictatorial regime and that “it does not matter which candidate gets the most votes Saturday because Taiwan itself has already won.”
Taiwan has taken the road of democracy, whereby Taiwanese decide who gets the power to govern, and that power can be handed over peacefully from one party to another. In contrast, China is ruled by a small clique of CCP leaders who are in effect a perpetual dynasty riding on the backs of the rest of the population, never dismounting and never passing the baton to anyone else. In a struggle between freedom and dictatorship, the side of justice will surely win in the end.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS